Talk:Radical orthodoxy

Not well read

alex -- Whoever wrote this clearly hasn't read enough! Radical Orthodoxy has a great deal of engagement with sciences and very much with the arts. Graham Ward has written extensively on cinema!

simon -- The article is almost entirely unreferenced. It fails to engage with criticisms of RO. It makes inaccurate generalisations (it is, for example, simply untrue that 'Catholic theologies are usually subsequent to liturgical practices'. There is a great deal of pluralism within Catholic theology regarding the proper relationship between liturgy and academic theology). The tone is not that of a neutral point of view; we are told that RO 'sets its face against barbarism in politics, in the arts and especially in the churches', and we learn that 'Claims that Radical Orthodoxy is unintelligible can often be interpreted as unwillingness to undergo [re-education in French theology and philosophy]'. It seems not to occur to the author that prima facie obscurity on the part of some contemporary Francophone philosophers might be a product of their lack of conceptual precision, rather than of the chauvinism of their readers.

alex -- is that the simon author of Philosophy, God and Motion? Anyway, I'll try and re-write this whole section and get someone (eg Milbank or Conor Cunningham) to look over it and check it for accuracy. Good times.

Shouldn't this go under "Radical Orthodoxy" with both words capitalized? Orpheus42 21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The term "doxa" in Christianity does not mean "teaching" or "belief", but rather "glory". This is the NT witness and that of the Church Fathers and the usage of Greek speaking Christians. Ortho-doxy is right glory, not right teaching!DeoDonatus (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Right glory"? Are you sure? I think "right teaching" seems like credible but "right glory" more like lalala-nonsense. I would guess "right teaching" is the correct translation. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is "Right glory." Although the word "orthodoxy" as a whole has come to mean right teaching, the root of the word is doxa, glory. For Radical Orthodoxy this is significant, because the total response of humanity to knowledge has to be "doxological," giving God the glory for creation. This is just one example of how Radical Orthodoxy is hard to explain, because it challenges and sabatages our modern ways of thinking.

Overall, I agree that this article is confusing, and just weak. You can get a better understanding from some videos on Youtube.Beau in NC (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of "doxa" is not just "glory" but also " meaning", "opinion", "belief" (as in Plato, doxa vs. episteme). So "Orthodoxy" just means, and always has meant, "right teaching" in the sense of "right belief". 89.176.17.112 (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

biased

It's got to be said, this is a terrible article. It needs thorough revising. Currently it does not go through RO systematically. It contains no citations of some obvious quotations. It blurs the differences between Milbank, Ward, Tavistock. It rightly points out that its "membership" is limited to a few theologians, but it does not explain RO's influence more widely. It seems unable to separate positive and negative views of the "2nd renaissance" claims made for RO, and the academic-racialism of "Swiss, French, Germanic" is crude and clearly polemical: it could frankly be binned. It ends up being almost as vague and inconsistend as RO itself sometimes appears. It clearly quotes from some book-jacket blurbs (or Milbank sound-bites) for some of the catchier phrases, which generally lack substance or critique. It should be perfectly possible to make a wiki-page that gives an adequate account of the RO phenomenon in which some of its claims can be debated, but it ain't happening here yet...

Unclear and unhelpful

This article provides no useful information to anyone not already versed in the buzzwords. There is a string of references and no actual running text or summary of the topic. Parodie 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned up

Hello. I cleaned the article up. I deleted a lot of unhelpful stuff.

George Berkley

Would the philosopher/bishop George Berkley be included in the tradition (at least as a philosophical predecessor?).

This (from the article) seems to be exactly what he was saying: The movement reclaims the original early church idea that theology is the "queen of the sciences". This means that if the world is to be interpreted correctly, it must be viewed from the perspectives of theology. "

-C  26.2.2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.173.30 (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)